General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWere any laws broken by releasing the SC decision early?
Certainly confidentiality agreements and at least a few people will lose their careers. (responsible or not)
But I'm wondering. What law protects this information?
It's not like the military, where there a many many laws covering classified information etc.
J_William_Ryan
(1,748 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)See:
https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/clerk-thief-his-life-baker-visiting-judge-tells-story-1919-supreme-court-leak
https://calapplaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/2019.02.25-Appellate-Zealots-BF-on-Selling-secrets-The-disturbing-tale-of-Supreme-Court-clerk-Ashton-Embry.pdf
Realistically, the only punishment the current leaker likely faces is being fired.
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)Ocelot II
(115,576 posts)for financial gain. Laws have changed a lot since 1919.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)> Laws have changed a lot since 1919.
The second article I linked to suggests other laws that might cover the issue.
gldstwmn
(4,575 posts)Is someone really trying to assert that after ruling a woman doesn't have a right to privacy that the court has a right to privacy with this decision? That's preposterous.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)PSPS
(13,577 posts)gldstwmn
(4,575 posts)Do you remember Linda Tripp? Also you're assuming it's a clerk. What if it's not?
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)> What if it's not?
When a government employee responsible for printing the court's final opinions was suspected of leaking he just got transferred.
RobinA
(9,884 posts)the freedom not to wear a mask or get vaxed, but they won't extend freedom to a pregnant woman.
Tickle
(2,488 posts)I've been trying to find out. The only thing that seems consistent from reading is the person is going to get disbarred.
I think that is it
Phoenix61
(16,992 posts)pwb
(11,245 posts)Who leaked matters not. The opinion is the ball. IMO.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)ZonkerHarris
(24,204 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)will likely have lots of well paid speaking engagements ahead.
ZonkerHarris
(24,204 posts)That's my day job
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Ocelot II
(115,576 posts)and that it was intended to keep the conservative justices from changing their positions before final publication. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/03/alito-roe-leaked-draft-disaster-for-supreme-court/ There was little to be gained by pro-Roe advocates by releasing information a bit early that everyone expected anyhow. Cui bono? Not the liberals.
ZonkerHarris
(24,204 posts)out of control on you.
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)I don't think the question is out of line.
ANd I think it does matter. Especially if it turns out the leaker is right wing.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,121 posts)LetMyPeopleVote
(144,884 posts)There is no crime at play here
Link to tweet
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/03/politics/supreme-court-leak-investigation/index.html?utm_term=link&utm_source=twCNNp&utm_content=2022-05-03T23%3A43%3A04&utm_medium=social
Moreover, after leading politically sensitive investigations of presidential candidates and a sitting president in recent years, Justice Department and FBI officials are loath to get the bureau involved in what may end up being a political effort to try to affect the outcome of the court's final opinion in the case.
"Leaks of government information, by themselves, are not crimes," said Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst who's a professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "Usually, leakers are prosecuted for leaking classified information, which this isn't, or for offenses related to how they obtained the information they leaked."
"But without one of those hooks, or some kind of financial harm to the government arising from the leak, there's no federal criminal statute that makes leaking of simply confidential governmental information unlawful," Vladeck added.